Workability and Mechanical Properties of PVA Fiber-Limestone Fine Cementitious Composite
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this paper, a total of 12 mortar mixes with varying PVA fiber and LF were produced for workability and mechanical properties measurement and analysis. The process of manuscript analysis is relatively complete, but the innovation is not enough. In addition, some specific contents in the manuscript need further improvement.
1. In the abstract, there should be a clear research objective so that the reader can judge whether these objectives have been achieved. The research objective of the manuscript is not clear, and further improvement is suggested.
2. The key words should focus on the theme and core content of the paper. The key words in the manuscript list the names of several characterization methods and suggest improvement.
3. The introduction does not discuss the existing research deeply and systematically, and should enrich the review of the existing relevant research.
4. Figures 1 to 8 of the manuscript are routine test devices, which should be selected with emphasis and not all of them need to be listed.
5. In this study, LF is added to replace cement paste (cement + water) by volume. The volume of LF varied among 10 %, and 20 %. Try to elaborate further on the amount of LF in Table 5.
6. Some English expressions in the manuscript need further improvement.
7. The conclusion should be explained with specific data to be more convincing, and the future outlook should be appropriately added.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
Thank you for the review effort. The comments are addressed one by one in the following.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper investigates the workability and mechanical properties of PVA fiber-limestone fine cementitious composites. Although the testing methods and compared results attained in the present study show the importance of the paper, the authors should address the following comments:
1. The abstract must require a short introduction, problem statement, significant finding, and conclude the abstract with your outcome or novelty. Please revise it.
2. Please do not use bullet point in 2.1 materials section. Please rewrite this section.
3. Please do not use commertial names of materials and test equipments.
4. How did the authors choose mix design?
5. The test methods are given, but please provide details on why you used these tests.
6. How many samples did the authors use for a single test? Please define for all tests.
7. Please add error bars of Figures in Result section.
8. Fig 16: the texts are not visible.
9. Throughout the text, some typos must be eliminated.
10. The manuscript is well-written and well-designed.
Author Response
Thank you for the review effort. The comments are addressed one by one in the following.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study explores the workability and mechanical properties of cementitious composites with polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) fibers and limestone fines (LF) as additives. Varying PVA and LF contents impacted flowability, compressive and flexural strength, and porosity. Optimal contents—0.2% PVA for compressive strength and 0.4% PVA with 10% LF for flexural strength—enhanced strength and durability through pore structure improvements. However, before further consideration of the manuscript, the authors must “fully” address the comments listed below:
1- How does the compressive strength variation with age (e.g., 7, 14, and 28 days) for different PVA fiber contents (0%, 0.2%, 0.4%, 0.6%) compare to industry standards for durability in cementitious composites?
2- Why did the steel bar exhibit greater adhesiveness than the stone bar, especially with a 71% reduction for stone with 0.6% PVA fiber? How might this impact the composite's applicability in steel-reinforced structures?
3- The study found optimal LF and PVA fiber contents (10% LF and 0.2%-0.4% PVA). Can this optimization be generalized across different cement types or environmental conditions, or is further calibration needed?
4- The authors used mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) at up to 60,000 psi to analyze pore sizes, categorizing them as highly harmful (≥200 nm), harmful (50–200 nm), slightly harmful (20–50 nm), and innocuous (≤20 nm) based on PVA fiber (0–0.6%) and LF (0–20%) contents. Recent discoveries highlight the potential correlation between surface wettability measurements and porosities in cementitious materials. Two interesting papers can be studied and referenced (in the future directions section of your paper): Paper 1: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2016.02.008, and paper2: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41529-023-00371-4
5- With MIP showing pore transformations, how effective was LF in filling “harmful” pore sizes (50-200 nm), and is there an optimal percentage for balancing pore reduction without sacrificing flowability?
6- Cumulative pore volume analysis suggested strength differences among mixtures. How did these correlate with the strength values, particularly for mixtures with 10% and 20% LF?
Author Response
Thank you for the review effort. The comments are addressed one by one in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made the necessary changes. The manuscript, therefore, can be accepted.
Author Response
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the review effort, comments and positive recommendation.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed my comments, and the paper can be accepted for publication.
Author Response
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the review effort, comments and positive recommendation.
